Pentagon Survivor April Gallop: "It's obvious the official story was fabricated..."

reply to post by Fedge


OK. This is a composite of various pictures showing different angles of the impact, you can verify the extent on individual photos if you really don't trust people. The plane came in left wing slightly low, you can see where it destroyed a large section of front column, then there is 1st floor damage where the fuselage hit, and where the tip of the right wing impacted.



If you want to verify measurements, it's easy enough with Google Earth.

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Yukitup

 

Is this because she has an opinion different from yours?

Not at all . It is because her opinion is in direct contrast to solid , irrefutable evidence that shows airplane wreckage inside and outside of the Pentagon .

If she saw no aircraft wreckage , then she did not exit the building at the point that she says she did , as the impact zone was littered with plane wreckage .

Therefore , she is either mistaken , lying , or delusional .

While I respect your opinion, as I do hers, your opinion that there was "irrefutable evidence" showing airplane wreckage is just that: your opinion. It would appear that the "wreckage" evidence is anything but "irrefutable."

What she did and did not see exiting the building (wherever it was that she actually exited) is subject to innumerable external and internal stimuli -- and positing that she is either "mistaken, lying, or delusional" because she didn't see what YOU think she should have seen is, at best, an ill conceived ad hominem fallacy.

Now, spurring the debate -- you tell me: if we were to plan a massive attack in an effort to conceal our illicit activities and set the foundation for the continued fleecing of a general population (hypothetical proposition, of course), would we be smart enough to plan our operation while our air defenses were diverted, confiscate and bury countless videos of our attack on the specific area of a massive building that housed records of our financial malfeasance, and plant evidence necessary to support our cover story? (hint: TRILLIONS of dollars at stake, unimaginable resources, and NOTHING to lose).

To all those questioning her purported lawsuit against American Airlines, I have a simple question:

If the officially supported story says it was an American Airlines jet that hit the Pentagon, as a victim of that attack (assuming all the usual physical and, certainly, mental trauma), who was she supposed to sue? Lockheed-Martin? People act as though, to get any justice, she should have sued the manufacturer of the missile (which a lot of us believe actually HIT the Pentagon).

How far would that case of gotten her?

I think we all know the answer to that.

reply to post by benoni

the only evidence of a plane are a handful of photos of small pieces of wreckage that anyone could carry and plant.

So , who do you propose carried those pieces of aircraft into the burning building and planted them , the firefighters ?

If not , then who planted those pieces and when did they do so ?

Also , did your sister happen to get pictures of any missile parts/pieces that you might share with us ?

reply to post by okbmd


Show me pictures of dead people, seats, luggage. You know, the kinds of things one would expect to see. Show me the damned engines and not some tiny pieces that could be anything.

Show me damage that is consistent with a airplane striking the building at a high speed. Show me a hole big enough to have been hit by a airplane.

Nice try with your last response to me, but no dice, sir. You are either mistaken, lying and /or delusional.

reply to post by Yukitup

would we be smart enough to plan our operation while our air defenses were diverted, ...

Terrorist organizations also utilize intelligence-gathering as a major tool in their operations . That is why they have been so successful with their activities . It's not as though a lot of strategic planning doesn't factor into the attacks they carry out .

Originally posted by TheLoony
Show me pictures of dead people, seats, luggage. You know, the kinds of things one would expect to see. Show me the damned engines and not some tiny pieces that could be anything.

So wait, one person, who has some rather dubious history of making grandiose claims is taken as incontrovertible evidence, but to believe that an aircraft hit, you not only need 100+ people seeing it, a few people nearly getting hit by it, the wreckage everywhere, the DNA evidence and the firefighter accounts, but you also want to see even more photos of the dead and the destruction?

Show me damage that is consistent with a airplane striking the building at a high speed. Show me a hole big enough to have been hit by a airplane.

See my first post on this page.

Originally posted by Yukitup
Now, spurring the debate -- you tell me: if we were to plan a massive attack in an effort to conceal our illicit activities...

Let me ask you this simple question. If you were planning this attack, and planned to make it seem as if a plane had hit the Pentagon. Considering that you have already crashed 2 planes into the towers, and will eventually crash or shoot down a third. Why on earth would you not use a real plane for the Pentagon?

I see the 'no plane at Pentagon' theory as being a case of contradiction, if the 'official story' states it, you gotta disagree with it. (Not you personally of course)

reply to post by chaeone86


You really might want to do some better research before you spout off about "restricted" airspace and SAMs. Either that or look at a frigging satellite photo of the Pentagon and its relationship to Ronald Reagan National Airport.

Originally posted by TheLoony
Show me the damned engines and not some tiny pieces that could be anything.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

They have been posted many times here before

reply to post by TheLoony


The pictures of the engines are to be found in the link I provided in my previous post to you .

The following image is GRAPHIC and disturbing , as it is the remains of one of the victims at the Pentagon .

www.law.umkc.edu...

reply to post by Dogdish

I believe she has only sued those she knows to be complicit in the act.

You might want to do some more research into her lawsuits then. She sued a bank for financing Middle Eastern terrorists that she does not believe attacked us.

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Yukitup

 

would we be smart enough to plan our operation while our air defenses were diverted, ...

Terrorist organizations also utilize intelligence-gathering as a major tool in their operations . That is why they have been so successful with their activities . It's not as though a lot of strategic planning doesn't factor into the attacks they carry out .

That would be a yes?

reply to post by Nyteskye

If the officially supported story says it was an American Airlines jet that hit the Pentagon, as a victim of that attack (assuming all the usual physical and, certainly, mental trauma), who was she supposed to sue?

Seems to me , you're missing the point here . She settled with American Airlines after suing them for damages she claimed as a direct result of their plane crashing into the Pentagon .

She then turns around and says there was no plane that hit the Pentagon . ( Only making this claim AFTER she collected from AA ) .

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Yukitup
Now, spurring the debate -- you tell me: if we were to plan a massive attack in an effort to conceal our illicit activities...

Let me ask you this simple question. If you were planning this attack, and planned to make it seem as if a plane had hit the Pentagon. Considering that you have already crashed 2 planes into the towers, and will eventually crash or shoot down a third. Why on earth would you not use a real plane for the Pentagon?

I see the 'no plane at Pentagon' theory as being a case of contradiction, if the 'official story' states it, you gotta disagree with it. (Not you personally of course)

(playing devil's advocate) I can conceive of targeting issues here - trying to hit a massive skyscraper with an airplane has got to be incredibly difficult. Hitting a ground target in an area specific enough to destroy the intended target (records) with a massive airplane must be incredibly difficult. With the necessary resources at our disposal and a minimal percentage chance of success with an aircraft and guaranteed success with a painted missile (hypothetically) -- I can understand selecting the missile approach.

Nope, no plane wreckage here....

www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...


Jamie McIntyre CNN....

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane

transcripts.cnn.com...



And yes, I fully realize some "enlightened" soul will come along shortly and declare that Mr McIntyre said there was no evidence a plane crashed into the building. Before you post however, I would read the full transcript. Mr McIntyre was responding to the report that the plane had hit the ground before it hit the Pentagon and he was saying that there was no evidence it had hit the ground...but that it had impacted on the building.

Mr McIntyre in 2006...discussing conspiracy theories....

Of course, having been there on September 11th, having seen the plane wreckage and photographed it myself personally, I can tell you that that's nonsense. But nevertheless, those kinds of theories exist on the Internet. And one of the reasons that groups like Judicial Watch and CNN -- which, by the way, filed a freedom of information request for this back in 2002 -- have been wanting to get the full video out.

transcripts.cnn.com...



Just food for thought



.

Well no photos show anything that constitutes proof that a plane was ever impacted there... A few shards of pretty colored metal does not, to a thinking person, a plane make.
As for the disturbing photo of a corpse, what does this prove?Nothing.

Remember.... To accept the official fairytale you have to believe that the massive plane created a hole less than 20ft in diameter in the pentagon wall....20feet!

As this is impossible I find it rather backward to even have the cheek to try and peddle this insane crap as being possible....
I also think it's hilarious that the usual suspects repeat this mantra of theirs whenever they can....lol...as though they are vainly trying to sway our logic into their Twilight Zone of nonsense and lies....

reply to post by vipertech0596

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane

I've never personally seen a green and red American Airlines plane...

reply to post by Alfie1


I would think that on a sunny day, the amount of light would create better visibility for an escape from the fire, rather than trying to hide from it inside a darkened (assuming the power was interrupted) room full of smoke.

I think she made the wise choice. How many victims were found roaming the halls afterward?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Proof of the pemtagon not being what it should be was nearly 10 years ago when they confiscated all cctv within miles radius. not saying it was struck by missile or anything els but from official pictures there seemed to be no plane debris other than strategically placed airplane parts.

Spread the word to those who don't believe, big brother and survivor is not what life is about